YouTube Playlist MCP

Auth & quota status

get_status

Read-only

Check whether YouTube access is configured and see how much of today's API quota the server has used, without spending quota.

Instructions

Show whether YouTube access is configured and how much of today's API quota this server has used. Costs no quota.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is its cost disclosure: calling it consumes no API quota, which matters because every sibling does. It also pre-announces the two things inspected (auth configured state, today's quota usage), leaving only the exact response shape unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and closed with the cost caveat. Every clause carries distinct information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it names both signals (access configured, quota used today). It does not specify the quota ceiling or whether usage is per-server or per-key, a minor gap for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail and instead spends its words on scope and cost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Show whether YouTube access is configured and how much of today's API quota this server has used" gives specific verb (show) plus two concrete resources (auth configuration, quota consumption). Nothing in the sibling list (search_videos, create_playlist, etc.) overlaps with a diagnostic status read, so an agent can pick it unambiguously.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The closing note "Costs no quota" tells the agent this is a free check, which implicitly encourages calling it before/around quota-consuming siblings. It stops short of an explicit "call this first if a YouTube operation fails" instruction or any when-not guidance, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server